McCain Thread [Archive]

View Full Version : McCain Thread

EmoRebellion

06-18-2008, 10:21 AM

There is a few Obama threads, but not a good one to talk about McCain. Lets start with this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Thoughts?

PHeller

06-18-2008, 12:01 PM

Ummm...for some reason all of them have been removed...

CraZx2ing

06-18-2008, 12:04 PM

Can we just write Mickey Mouse on the ballot??

EmoRebellion

06-18-2008, 12:17 PM

I think lotsa people tried that last time, and look what happened.. Your probably better off just filling the bubble labeled "Obama". ;-)

SoCalZX2

06-18-2008, 12:38 PM

I'm not sure "better off" would be the term I'd use to fill in that bubble, but to each their own ;)

JonsZX2SR

06-18-2008, 01:34 PM

Depending on VP candidates, I could vote either way. Neither Obama nor McCain is completely satisfactory.

If McCain were to pick a less traditional Republican, such as Gov. Bobby Jindall of Louisiana, I would consider them. The fact that McCain is 72 y.o. makes the choice of VP particularly critical.

Similarly Obama needs to pick a centrist, moderate thinking candidate for VP, who he would listen to.

What I would hate is for McCain to pick a far right conservative and Obama a heavily left leaning liberal, polarizing the choices.

Being pragmatic, I just hope we elect enough leaders, including the Senate and the House who can chart a moderate, successful course through tough economic times.

PHeller

06-18-2008, 03:21 PM

I would agree, Jindall would be a great VP pick, and might sway me if Obama were to go with someone like say...Clinton.

EmoRebellion

06-18-2008, 03:33 PM

... if Obama were to go with someone like say...Clinton.
Not gonna happen..

Mike

06-18-2008, 04:00 PM

Not gonna happen..

Better not happen.

panda_bear

06-18-2008, 08:38 PM

I liked McCain til he started with the whole "if it take 100 years" thing... That as a matter of fact is the only thing I don't like about him but it is a big enough issue to me to get me not to vote for him. Obama on the other hand SEEMS to have a good head on his shoulders and stuff but he is too smooth of a talker so I can't trust him. But then again, bush is a terrible speaker and that doesn't make him a good president (in fact, nothing does). But then there is hillary who, if elected president, would make me flee to Canada or really anywhere else... Terrible speaker yes. But only because she talks in circles. She says whatever gets her more votes. Thank God I don't have to worry about her now.

Ron Paul was my pick. I loved everything he said. Too bad he didn't have the money to find his campaign enough to win.

EmoRebellion

06-18-2008, 09:23 PM

... So since Obama is educated, and can actually form words together into coherent thoughts you cant trust him?

Did you watch the McCain video?

phosphite

06-19-2008, 06:06 AM

I still can't believe that people would actually seriously consider letting McCain run the country, after seeing the effects his party have had on the country in the last 8 years. If you watch the video McCain seems to flip flop everywhere on every issue, and not really be aware of what's going on in his immediate presence. All I can say is...wow.

EmoRebellion

06-19-2008, 08:19 AM

:beernana:Finally someone sees the obvious.. Thank you!

PHeller

06-19-2008, 08:42 AM

McCain doesn't like answering questions he doesn't know his own stance on.

He often avoids questions that he might stumble over. However, on issues he's opinionated and well versed about (usually military related), he's very strong in debates.

Obama however, is good at showing what he knows about a subject, but sometimes gets a little over his head. He's willing to answer any question, but he usually will correct himself, or make a comment 1-2 days later saying how "that wasn't exactly what he meant to say". Which I can relate to. You can't expect someone to know everything about everything, but if you give them a topic, and say "research this", and they come back with valid arguments or supports about that given topic, rather than just avoiding it because they haven't formed an opinion, you know you have a level headed person on your hands.

McCain's advisors have instructed him not to answer questions he's not comfortable answering. They don't want him saying stupid stuff or appearing to flip-flop. For this reason, he's avoided certain questions mutliple times, at multiple town hall meetings.

zxtwou2

06-23-2008, 02:25 AM

as conservative as i am...the republicans have a bad name unfortunately thanks to Bush...so i think we need a democrat...but for only ONE reason. right now, the democrat majority in congress is focusing more attention on making Bush look worse than the issues they should be focusing on...so maybe they'd get back to business if they had a dem in office. buuuutttt...i'd prefer it be anyone in the world but Clinton...and obama's not that great either.

SoCalZX2

06-23-2008, 10:28 AM

PHeller

06-23-2008, 11:50 AM

FROM MSNBC

How they have voted:

In 2005, McCain voted to table (that is, kill) an amendment offered by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., that would have imposed a 27.5 percent tax on imported goods from China, as a way of punishing China for its alleged manipulation of its currency in order to boost Chinese exports.

Obama voted against the effort to kill the Schumer-Graham amendment.

In 1999, McCain voted for the landmark bill to give permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to China. Enactment of this bill helped greatly expand American trade with China.

McCain voted against amendments proposed by Sen. Paul Wellstone, D- Minn., and Sen. Jesse Helms, R- N.C. that would have blocked normal trade relations until the Beijing government stopped its use of “reeducation through labor” camps to imprison political dissidents and released Chinese Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims whom Beijing had imprisoned because they openly practiced or professed their faith.

zxtwou2

06-23-2008, 12:46 PM

Yeah, thats a good reason to vote DEM lol.

lol...wasn't being serious. i was pointing out how ridiculous our congress is right now and why.

SeRiousZX2

06-23-2008, 04:11 PM

They don't want him saying stupid stuff or appearing to flip-flop.

Too late...:beer:

krux

06-23-2008, 04:22 PM

Huh. If I had to vote it would be mccain

SeRiousZX2

06-23-2008, 04:27 PM

Arnold, Arnold, Arnold, Arnold.....

EmoRebellion

06-23-2008, 04:46 PM

Arnold, Arnold, Arnold, Arnold.....
Dude dont even joke like that.. Im actually from California, and its not funny.. "Oooh lets elect the Terminator.."

Yeah, now what assholes?

SoCalZX2

06-23-2008, 07:11 PM

I think Arnold had some good ideas, but actually trying to balance a jacked up fiscal budget and state wasn't as easy as he'd thought it would be?

I'm also from Cali btw

SoCalZX2

06-23-2008, 07:12 PM

lol...wasn't being serious. i was pointing out how ridiculous our congress is right now and why.

Sorry lol. Harder to sell the sarcasm on the net with words than in person.

EmoRebellion

06-23-2008, 08:06 PM

I think Arnold had some good ideas, but actually trying to balance a jacked up fiscal budget and state wasn't as easy as he'd thought it would be?

I'm also from Cali btw
He did a great job in the beginning, imho. He was able to get the state legislate to talk to eachother, something that no one had been able to do..

Now he has royally fucked our school systems, among other things..

SoCalZX2

06-23-2008, 09:07 PM

He did a great job in the beginning, imho. He was able to get the state legislate to talk to eachother, something that no one had been able to do..

Now he has royally fucked our school systems, among other things..

Don't disagree, but the money to cover certain costs has to come from somewhere.... Although I do believe shortsiding the schools and other public services like Police and Firefighters isn't a good idea.

zxtwou2

06-23-2008, 09:52 PM

*stands up*

Ron Paul

*sits back down quickly*

EmoRebellion

06-24-2008, 07:45 AM

*stands up*

Ron Paul

*sits back down quickly*

*stands up*

*kicks you in the face*

*walks out of thread quietly*

PHeller

06-24-2008, 08:17 AM

I don't understand.

How hard is it for people to say "what I'm about to say isn't on topic, so I'll save it for another thread where it would be appropriate."

These damn threads go so far off topic it isn't funny. We start talking about politics and end up talking about fishing, or golf, or tacos. I'm sure some of those things relate to some politicians, but for the most part, that's not what the OP had intended.

You say, what do you think about Elmo? and someone immediately comes in and says, BIG BIRD IS THE BEST! and NO NO COOKIE MONSTER ISN'T HEALTHY ANYMORE and I LIKE TACOS!

Seriously...I understand that we like to have debates...but can't we keep them somewhat on topic?

Anyway, does anyone have any relevant McCain news?

Gregersonke

06-25-2008, 01:35 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LsEN_As_p50

What do you think now?

PHeller

06-25-2008, 01:46 PM

That's because Clark is at tried and true Democrat. Of course he's gonna bash McCain.

Gregersonke

06-25-2008, 09:06 PM

First, you aren't even addressing the issue he brought up about McCain. He makes a very solid point.

Second,

Tried and true??

Look at his record, his debates and speeches the guy is less democrat than most of the democratic party.

PHeller

06-26-2008, 08:33 AM

Honestly, I didn't get to watch much of the youtube clip because I'm at work.

However, since Clark is a democrat, you can be he'll likely side with democrats when it comes to finding out stuff to get McCain on.

I'll watch the clip and respond after.

ChrisK

07-09-2008, 11:59 AM

I wish Ron Paul would have made the R nominee, my vote was deff going to him. But now i'll just vote for mccain to help him beat osama bama. Honestly I don't feel like paying more taxes, and that is all the democrats seem to do.

af3ll

07-09-2008, 12:25 PM

I wish Ron Paul would have made the R nominee, my vote was deff going to him. But now i'll just vote for mccain to help him beat osama bama.
Idiot.

ChrisK

07-09-2008, 01:36 PM

Idiot.

thank you. still won't change my vote. I don't vote for un-American candidates, fuck obama, if he can't salute the flag during the National Anthem then why should I vote for him.

SoCalZX2

07-09-2008, 01:46 PM

thank you. still won't change my vote. I don't vote for un-American candidates, fuck obama, if he can't salute the flag during the National Anthem then why should I vote for him.

Thats gonna get you crucified btw. Just duck now.

I'm not one to support Obama, but he's been proven to hold to all the symbolism. Wearing the lapel pin, holding his hand over his heart during the national anthem... yadda yadda yadda.

ChrisK

07-09-2008, 01:51 PM

haha bring it. I really don't care. after seeing that video it was enough to make up my mind.

af3ll

07-09-2008, 10:25 PM

Yeah that video had a lot of truth in it. It's good to see it helped you make a good decision on who to vote for.

ChrisK

07-10-2008, 06:17 AM

yep sure did.

EmoRebellion

08-25-2008, 04:40 PM

http://mail2.someecards.com/filestorage/soto_47.jpg

SeRiousZX2

08-26-2008, 12:04 PM

thank you. still won't change my vote. I don't vote for un-American candidates, fuck obama, if he can't salute the flag during the National Anthem then why should I vote for him.

Its sad that you believe everything that the republican media shoots out.

To pin point how stupid your philosophy is: Do you believe that M&Ms only melt in your mouth and not in your hands?

SoCalZX2

08-26-2008, 12:08 PM

And it's also sad how many just believe everything the liberal media shoots out...

JonsZX2SR

08-26-2008, 12:54 PM

My concern with McCain is that while he was a well qualified candidate, he is clearly past his best years. People pointed out Obama's inexperience as a concern. This is a legitimate point, but Obama is still on the upside in terms of cognitive abilities.

I'm not sure that is the case with McCain. He does have experience but I believe he is already showing signs of diminished cognitive ability. If he surrounds himself with the likes of Dick Cheney and other advisors from the Bush administration I am concerned we are going to continue to mismanage the US economy, especially continuing to increase national debt and a persisting imbalance of trade.

To get my vote, McCain is going to need to nominate a younger VP, with leadership capability, principles consistent with McCain's and who can be his closest advisor. The VP needs to act as a counterpoint to his cabinet and other advisors. Gov. Bobby Vindall or Gov. Pawlenty are candidates I could vote for, as is a dark horse, George Pataki. Mitt Romney doesn't affect my vote either way, positive or negative.

I would have touble with either Lieberman or Huckabee as VP. I don't trust either of these guys, especially the Democrat turned independent, turned independent Democrat, Lieberman.

If Obama's inexperience is a valid concern, then the risk of McCain's possible decline in the near future is equally valid. One thing McCain could do to convince me is to be realistic and name a younger VP, who is also on the upside as far as abilities, and who has similar values and is a fast learner.

Buster

08-26-2008, 01:54 PM

EmoRebellion

08-26-2008, 02:08 PM

Interesting how people can read two totally different things from the same paragraph. Im glad McCain can sort everything in to black and white, right or wrong, two categories with no middle ground. He gives the simplest answer, and the simplest minds fall right in line.

Who defines "evil"? Is our evil the same as Russias evil? What about Georgias evil, is that the same? Lets go out and destroy all evil and leave ourselves nothing but scorched earth.

pinkshinyalan

08-26-2008, 02:33 PM

^

You obviously did NOT watch the townhall meeting last week. McCain snapped off clear, concise and detailed answers immediately.

Obama, because he had no teleprompter, stuttered and spoke in wordy responses that danced around the questions without providing any substantive answers.

Some examples:

When asked about when a baby gets human rights, Obama answered "whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade."

McCain immediately said "At the moment of conception."

Obama's answers are thoughtful and measured, which is why it seems like he "stumbled." The questions were tailored for quick answers from a conservative point of view, which is why McCain was able to provide such quick responses. To a conservative, this is a bright-line distinction, and the only answer is, "At the moment of conception."

Obama was in the tough position of having to convince people he may disagree with why they should vote for him. Did he avoid answering the question? Sort of. He didn't give a clear answer, but he did provide an insight as to how he'd legislate such an issue.

And, from a religious perspective, he's implying that only God gets to choose when life begins. We can speculate, but only God knows, and Obama is more interested in a woman's control over her body than the continuing development of a fetus. (Let's not get into a debate over abortion now, please.)

When asked if evil exists in the world and should it be defeated, Obama answered "Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil. You know a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil... In the name of good and I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that. You know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't mean that we're going to be doing good."

McCain said "Defeat it." Then went on to talk about al Qaeda and radical Islam, enemies that Obama does not even mention or acknowledge as existing.

Do you really think Obama doesn't think al-Qaeda exists? Please don't be ridiculous.
It should be clear that Obama was talking in broader terms about evil. The Vietnam war, the Crusades, the Japanese internment camps in WWII, prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, the 9/11 attacks were all undertaken in the name of abolishing evil. The United States has done a lot of good in the world and inside its borders, but it's also done bad -- which is why we need to be careful when we start throwing around the word "evil."

But yes, assuming we all agree on (and are right about) the definition of evil, of course we defeat it. The question may seem that clear on the surface, but evil is a terribly broad term.

*Notice how in a question asking about defeating evil in the world, Obama's reply includes the word "WE" over and over.

What's wrong with using the term "we" when an American is talking about America to other Americans?

Not only does McCain have a sharper mind, it's also evident he loves his nation, while Obama is constantly trashing it. Which type of person is more fit to lead the nation, one who cares about it or one who wants to change it to appeal to foreigners? Yes, exactly. Obama is unfit for leadership.

I don't understand what you're implying here (bold part).

***

With regard to Wesley Clark's statements, I think he makes some good criticisms of McCain's experience. Since he's running on this foreign-policy-experience platform, his credentials in that respect are fair game.

Yes, McCain served his country honorably, and his story is impressive. That doesn't mean he automatically has the credentials to make decisions at the level of commander-in-chief. That's (somewhat) akin to saying that an amputee would know how to run a shoe store. (pardon my imprecise analogy; I'm having trouble thinking of something exactly right. I hope you get the idea.)

JonsZX2SR

08-26-2008, 03:57 PM

I saw the town hall meeting and I was not impressed. Mccain's answers were snapped off quickly, but they were little more than one liners and well rehearsed responses. I've also seen in depth discussions by McCain and he is not the person he was 8 years ago. It is unfortunmate Mccain rather than Bush did not get the nomination in 2000, because he very well might have lead the country down a different path we are following today.

People can argue the Bush administration hasn't donm a worse job than previous adminstrations, but the record national debt, the record imbalance of trade, the weak US dollar and the increasing ability of foreigners to buy US companies and resources say otherwise.

Read about what Buffett and Peterson have to say about the looming debt crises -> http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/21/news/economy/buffett_town_hall.ap/index.htm We cannot continue to send $1 billion per day to the rest of the world.

Anheuser-Busch is the tip of the iceberg. US banks are increasingly owned by wealthy middle eastern, Chinese and Japanese investors.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/15/news/international/chinese_banks/index.htm

Question: Who ownes HSBC ?? How about ING ?? How much has Saudi Arabia invested in US financial institutions (http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_22.htm) ??

The Bush apologists can argue this isn't his fault, and they correct. It is the fault of the Bush administration, the Congress and the policy makers of the past 8 years. Nevertheless it is a problem.

McCain probably would have avoided this mess in 2000, but in 2008 I have little confidence he will change the current policies that are basically selling our country to the rest of the world. There are plenty of Americans who are employable globally and will do alright regardless. What about the rest of the Americans ??

My concern is for the majority of Americans who will become employed by foreign owned companies and vulnerable to decisions of foreign management. People in places like Africa, Latin America, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. have been dependent on foreign owners for their economies. Do we want the average American to be treated like the average mexican, Indonesian, Filipino, palestinian, etc. when it comes to his job in the year 2015 ??

Foreigners are buying the US with dollars exported by the huge trade imbalance. Ask yourself, do we really want to continue that pattern here for another 4 years ??

I don't think McCain and most of the old school Republicans understand the problem. The current administration (Bush AND Congress) has done nothing to stem the hemmorhage of money overseas. With Obama there is at least a glimmer of hope he understands new international economics.

We need more than a change at the top, we need to change congress and our policy makers. My concern with McCain is we will get another 4 years of Bush and we cannot afford that mistake.

SeRiousZX2

08-26-2008, 03:58 PM

I agree with Pink. Very nice debate.

And on the Evil statement from Buster: Who defines evil??? Who defines terrorist??? Muslims think we are evil and are terrorist. So what. Just because our views are the majority doesn't make us the world police. If Mccain truely wanted to "destroy" evil, then why waste time with Iraq? Lets drop a nuke and "destroy those evil, evil people"...

Shame on them for having different political and religious beliefs than the majority....

SeRiousZX2

08-26-2008, 04:03 PM

McCain probably would have avoided this mess, but I have little confidence he will change the current policies that are basically selling our country to the rest of the world. There are plenty of Americans who are emnployable globally and will do alright regardless.

Great points Jon.

Also Mccain has already stated that he wants to continue the same policies of the Bush Admin.

JonsZX2SR

08-26-2008, 04:21 PM

Seriously, if I wanted to go work in Europe or China tomorrow for a global company, I could, and I have job offers in Europe. Perhaps 2-5% of Americans are in this position. People with educations in finance, investment, law, medicine, engineering, design, journalism, higher education, etc. What happens to the other 95% if foreign investors buy American businesses, treat employees the same way workers are treated in 3rd world countries and export the work overseas ??

It is because I already work (thankfully) for a US owned global corporation I see the risks. Every day I see problems with China and other nations buying commoditioes and driving up prices with exported US dollars. It isn't just oil, it is copper, nickel, steel, etc ?? My job is to make sure the techologies and biusinesses stay competitive.

If localized US businesses can't compete because foreign investors hold too many dollars, what is going to happen ?? Those foreign held dollars will be used to buy US businesses to make foreign owned (rather than US owned) multi-national corporations. That's okay if you are a US worker who can work and compete for high paying foreign jobs, the same as foreigners who come here to get an education and work.

But what happens to Americans who haven't developed global skill sets to compete for global jobs ??

Welcome to the 21st century. I very much believe that the US can still be a player in the global economy with American owners and workers. But that isn't going to happen if we continue the current trend of shipping boatloads of our dollars to overseas investors who use that money to buy our economy.

af3ll

08-29-2008, 12:21 PM

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080829/capt.9dd81bc962cc447c871f004648c18bf2.mccain_veeps takes_palin_ohss106.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=Xn2.7FD_EBVrMPR3cR3K.Q--

zxtwou2

08-29-2008, 12:37 PM

oh look..i can do that too:

http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/7854newsimg.mid-size.jpg

am i cool now?

af3ll

08-29-2008, 12:41 PM

Did I hit a nerve? I'm sorry.

SoCalZX2

08-29-2008, 12:42 PM

Did I hit a nerve? I'm sorry.

Not really since your post holds no substance. It's a poor attempt to shine McCain in a bad light. Please provide some substance to your post :D

Thanks

af3ll

08-29-2008, 12:44 PM

Ok no jokes in here for all the conservatives.

SoCalZX2

08-29-2008, 12:45 PM

It was a comical picture, but the point behind it was? Just curious.

af3ll

08-29-2008, 12:52 PM

Who cares what the point was? It was a joke. Haha get it?

SoCalZX2

08-29-2008, 12:54 PM

Some jokes need to be spelled out in this section... Otherwise those who are hopelessly right or hopelessly left will assume you're trying to make a political point by just posting a picture (as has been done by both sides numerous times).

Trying to hide behind the guise of comedy doesn't always work... Just sayin'

af3ll

08-29-2008, 12:56 PM

Ok right people, I'll explain everything from now on.

zxtwou2

08-29-2008, 12:58 PM

Did I hit a nerve? I'm sorry.

no, i'm just saying it's not hard to come up with something with no value to a discussion...i happened to find an example of the same type of media...a funny picture. why so defensive? did i hit a nerve?

SoCalZX2

08-29-2008, 12:59 PM

Some annoyance in you I sense... ;)

I'm way more in the middle than to the right btw... lol

af3ll

08-29-2008, 01:01 PM

OK it must be that time of the month for you guys. Sorry I upset you all.

SoCalZX2

08-29-2008, 01:03 PM

lmao, who's upset?

zxtwou2

08-29-2008, 01:07 PM

lmao, who's upset?

:shrug: dunno. he was fast to fire back at my response of a picture to his picture...as if he wanted to stir some shit...maybe that's the reaction he wanted out of me...but i just put a funny picture after his funny picture to prove it's not hard or relevant to the post.

sorry i didn't get all flustered af311. next time i'll get all mad or something. :shrug:

af3ll

08-29-2008, 01:11 PM

OK.

EmoRebellion

09-05-2008, 10:44 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/worst%20mccain%20photo.jpg

SoCalZX2

09-05-2008, 10:45 AM

Interesting picture.... one could make some comments about the poor placement of the mic location in this shot lol.

EmoRebellion

09-05-2008, 03:02 PM

http://politicalirony.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/tt080905.gif

SeRiousZX2

09-05-2008, 03:32 PM

SoCalZX2

09-05-2008, 04:31 PM

Also, anyone who thinks this "surprising" time line that has been established to start withdrawing troops from Iraq isn't a political tool for Republicans is a fool. "Hey, look what we as Republicans did while Pres Bush was our CIC" America wanted a time-line to start pulling out troops and WE did that". WHATEVER.......

You'll just never be happy will you? First you whine that we're there... fair enough, and thank you again for your service. Now you whine that we'll be leaving... Please, pick a side and stay with it...

Political tool or not, men will be coming home. Which is the ultimate goal no? Everything ANY administration does is politically laced, so what makes this any different?

I'll thank you kindly for your service, but I'll also kindly ask you to shut the hell up since you've bitched the most about coming home, and are now complaining that it's happening.

SeRiousZX2

09-06-2008, 08:52 AM

Please tell me where in any of my post I was complaining that the troops were coming home!!!!!

I was mearly stating How the Republicans waited until now to make a decision. They have waited until right before the election to make thier selves look better. Look at how many lives have been lost due to this poor poor political move. This decision should have been made/decided 2-3 years ago. But hey, those weren't election years.

I am very grateful troops will be coming home!! What I don't appreciate and neither should you, is how they are being "used" as a political tool for the Republicans.

SoCalZX2

09-06-2008, 09:01 AM

I'm sorry, but saying that a decision wasn't made 2-3 years ago because it wasn't an election year is crap. I don't disagree that the timing is poor (or not poor depending on how it's looked at). Fact is, troops are coming home and hopefully it's being done correctly and hopefully Iraq can stand on it's own two feet (and can put some coin in our pocket for the effort we've put into their freedom / security of the last 5 years).

Is the timing politically based? Sure! Can't/wouldn't deny that since it's pretty obvious. To say that's basically the ONLY reason that troops are coming home is a bit ludicrous IMHO.

JonsZX2SR

09-06-2008, 09:13 AM

Who heard the part of McCains speech where he said Sarah Palin saved Alaskan taxpayer money by sellin the jet bought by the previous govenor ??

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/06/alaska-state-jet-didnt-fly-on-ebay/

What McCain said: "How many saw her speech a couple of nights ago? Wasn't it fabulous?" McCain said Friday during a campaign stop in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was purchased by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit."

What actually happened: But it turns out the twin-engine Westwind II was a tough sell on the Web — and the state eventually pulled it offline and sold it through an ordinary brick-and-mortar brokerage, for a loss, a spokeswoman said Friday.

"Governor Palin has been correct in saying that she put the plane on eBay," McCain campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella told CNN. "They did end up selling it for $2.1 million. but not on eBay."

Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, bought the jet for $2.7 million in 2005. The following year, Palin unseated Murkowski in the state's Republican primary and became governor: Upon taking office, she wanted to unload what former aide Meg Stapleton called "a symbol of corruption."

Stapleton told CNN that Murkowski paid too much for the jet, and that it was costing taxpayers money just sitting in the hangar.

"Eventually you had to concede and say, 'How often are we going to pay these bills and waste more state dollars?' " she said.

When putting it on eBay failed, aircraft broker Rob Heckmann was called in to sell the jet. Businessman Larry Reynolds bought the five-passenger jet for sold for $2.1 million. And Reynolds is now seeking another $50,000 from the state for unexpected maintenance issues with the aircraft."

I think what Palin did was laudable, unloading a costly mistake. But I ask the question, why did McCain have to embellish the facts, saying the plane was sold on eBay for a profit, when in fact it was not ?

I am concerned about the way McCain presents himself and question his credibility. Any reasonably functional person would have know some listeners would check his information. To make such a gaff in a public speech makes me wonder. Even Bill Clinton would have couched his words better. This is more along the lines of Hillary visiting Bosnia and claiming she was under sniper fire.

This isn't about Palin's actions, which I agree with, this isn't about teleprompter malfunctions or the ability to speak unassisted. This about the why the McCain camp took something positive and distorted it to the point where it calls the wisdom of McCain into question.

Any thoughts...?? We don't need 4 more years of deliberate distortions (or was it due to senility) regardless of it comes from the Democrats, Republicans or other. You'd figure if either set of candidates decided it was time to be a straight shooter they'd grab a critical portion of the vote.

SeRiousZX2

09-06-2008, 01:59 PM

McCain is old and too stupid to put any logical thought for himself together. I guess he forgot to take his Alzheimer medicine that day.

EmoRebellion

09-06-2008, 02:49 PM

No, it would be too easy to blame it on that. This is just one example of the many times they have both knowingly directly lied to the public. If Obama did something like that, some people here would have a field day. Im really interested to hear a response (as always).

JonsZX2SR

09-06-2008, 03:02 PM

McCain took an opportunity to give a positive example of Palin's work but lost credibility when he distorted and embellished the facts.

My question is why did he do that ? He and his team can't be that stupid that people wouldn't check the information, or are they ?? They will probably pin the blame on some low level staff member and fire them.

When GH Bush ran against Clinton in '92 he was pretty tired and out of touch. There was one story where he and Barbara and he was amazed by bar code scanners and other technology that had been developed while he lost touch with the American people. He was running for re-election mostly on inertia, having been VP for 8 years and Peez for 4 more. But he was tired and past his prime.

His energy and body language told a different story about someone who had less interest in actually being president. Clinton and his team used this to present themkself in a different light and he won the election.

Looking at McCain I also see someone who is atired of all the years of effort. He wanted to be president in the past, especially in 2008. Now that he's finally gotten there, well past his prime, is he running because he wants to do the job ? Or is he running because this is what he wanted in the past and he's finally gotten the chance, but he isn't up to the job.

I honestly can't answer my own question. I would have supported him in 2000 and very much preferred him to GW Bush, but some of McCain's recent gaffs have me wondering about his decision making skills.

As I've said before, my vote is still up in the air, but a few more of these and I doubt i would vote for him.

EmoRebellion

09-06-2008, 04:34 PM

...but a few more of these and I doubt i would vote for him.
Well I just happen to have a few of them right here. :wiz:

LIE: "Bear DNA study is a waste of taxpayer money, but I voted on it" (OK, thats not a direct quote..) http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/19/mccains-outrageous-exaggerations-voted-for-earmarks-he-now-rails-against/

LIE: “I have supported hundreds of pieces of legislation, which would help Americans obtain an equal opportunity in America. I am proud of that record, from fighting for the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday in my state to sponsoring specific legislation that would prevent discrimination in any shape or form in America today.” Oh, but I voted against MLK day several times.. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/02/mccain-lies-about-his-support-for-mlk-jr-day-in-arizona/

LIE: "And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state..." Oh wait.. http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1559

What about this goodie from his RNC speech?

LIE: "...stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much."
Fact: We spend about $536 billion total, to all exporting nations (not just the ones that dont like us)

LIE: "Obama calls Iran tiny" http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/from-the-fact-c.html

This is just what I happen to have in front of me :lol: Can this man ever tell the truth? These arent misquotes, jumbled facts, or incorrect dates. These are flat out, intentional, straight-faced lies.

(Note: I only gave one link per "topic", but they are all verifiable.)

EmoRebellion

09-09-2008, 08:04 AM

What, not so much as a counterpoint? I had a whole followup post ready to know.. :rolf:

I know, I know.. Ill give it time to sink in. :lol:

Buster

09-09-2008, 10:06 AM

McCain is old and too stupid to put any logical thought for himself together. I guess he forgot to take his Alzheimer medicine that day.

Fabulous argument.

This immature mentality is why the Democrats have not won a majority in an election since 1976 and are going to lose BIG this time around again.

They can never address and debate issues, so they just attack personally and try to destroy the opponent.

:elephant:

EmoRebellion

09-09-2008, 10:17 AM

They can never address and debate issues, so they just attack personally and try to destroy the opponent.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is the funniest thing I have read today.

Do you have any response to the issues, or are you just planning to personally attack other people? So far thats all you have done. Ive posted several accurate, verifiable, points attacking McCain and you have yet to respond to a single one.

:puke2:

Buster

09-09-2008, 10:23 AM

^ LOL!!

I find it funny how McCain has jumped on this "change" idea during the RNC. It wasn't more than a week ago that he stated he wanted to continue the same governing policies that Bush has established.

Also, anyone who thinks this "surprising" time line that has been established to start withdrawing troops from Iraq isn't a political tool for Republicans is a fool. "Hey, look what we as Republicans did while Pres Bush was our CIC" America wanted a time-line to start pulling out troops and WE did that". WHATEVER.......

McCain hasn't just "jumped" on a change idea. He's been opposing his party and ignoring party lines throughout his entire career. I've even criticized him in the past for some of his work (like teaming up with Ted Kennedy on an immigration bill) but he has ALWAYS done what he feels is right no matter who stands with or against him. I don't agree with him on every issue but he IS consistent and you can believe what he's saying. He's also shown that he listens to the voters and will do what they want, for example, he's realized how important domestic drilling is to the everyday American's wallet and how supports it. He has shown the ability to learn and admit when he's wrong instead of covering up and trying to hide daily mind changes (see Kerry and Obama campaigns).

Palin is a PROVEN reformer in the mold of McCain when it comes to non-partisanship.

Obama has been preaching "change change change...we need change, we will change" but has not shown any evidence that he has any real plans other than raising taxes and surrendering in the war on terror. He also does NOT represent change. He has been a do-nothing Senator. That's not change from what we're used to. He chose one of the longest-tenured Senators as a running mate. That is not change in any way either. He takes money and orders from liberal special interest groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink (a documented Obama donor wearing a Code Pink dress invaded the RNC during speeches). He opposes energy independence to keep envonmental donors happy. None of this is ANYTHING RESEMBLING CHANGE from what we've been seeing over the last few decades and expecially the Pelosi/Reid reign in Congress.

Obama preaches change, but offers none. McCain and Palin have records of reform and REAL change and intend to attempt to enforce it on the corrupt Washington powerbrokers. Whether they succeed or not is yet to be seen, but they WILL try to clean it up and get them working for the people instead of themselves again.

It's hilarious how incompetent Obama has become. I heard him stuttering and stammering out some words yesterday something along the lines of "they say they're for change? That's my plan and they have the audacity to say those words?" with some "Umm"s thrown in here and there. He refuses to debate one-on-one with McCain and without a teleprompter because he knows how badly he'll be embarrassed.

Buster

09-09-2008, 10:24 AM

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is the funniest thing I have read today.

Do you have any response to the issues, or are you just planning to personally attack other people? So far thats all you have done. Ive posted several accurate, verifiable, points attacking McCain and you have yet to respond to a single one.

:puke2:

Reading is fundamental, sir. ;)

Buster

09-09-2008, 10:25 AM

McCain Now Winning Majority of Independents
Majority of independents now prefer him over Obama, 52% to 37%

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080909Subgroups2_njdld9kd.gif

pinkshinyalan

09-09-2008, 10:40 AM

By your own standards of "doing what he thinks is right," polling well does not a good president make.

President Bush stuck with the Iraq war despite a decline in voter support for the war, citing that he was doing what he thinks is right.

Anyone who ever does anything does it because he thinks it's right. That argument doesn't hold water.

He refuses to debate one-on-one with McCain and without a teleprompter because he knows how badly he'll be embarrassed.

Where did you get this information? Or is this another one of your fabrications?

Any time Obama or Biden speak at a campaign stop, it's without a teleprompter. I'm pretty sure it's the same with McCain and Palin. Also, nobody uses teleprompters in debates.

McCain and Palin both used teleprompters when giving their speeches at the convention. So did everyone else, at both conventions. So what?

EmoRebellion

09-09-2008, 10:43 AM

McCain hasn't just "jumped" on a change idea. He's been opposing his party and ignoring party lines throughout his entire career. I've even criticized him in the past for some of his work (like teaming up with Ted Kennedy on an immigration bill) but he has ALWAYS done what he feels is right no matter who stands with or against him. I don't agree with him on every issue but he IS consistent and you can believe what he's saying. He's also shown that he listens to the voters and will do what they want, for example, he's realized how important domestic drilling is to the everyday American's wallet and how supports it. He has shown the ability to learn and admit when he's wrong instead of covering up and trying to hide daily mind changes (see Kerry and Obama campaigns).

Palin is a PROVEN reformer in the mold of McCain when it comes to non-partisanship.Palin has a long (well not that long) history of being a corrupt, thin-skinned hypocrit. http://www.pubrecord.org/politics/301-palins-reformer-image-tainted-by-history-of-ethical-lapses-.html

Obama has been preaching "change change change...we need change, we will change" but has not shown any evidence that he has any real plans other than raising taxes and surrendering in the war on terror. He also does NOT represent change. He has been a do-nothing Senator. That's not change from what we're used to. He chose one of the longest-tenured Senators as a running mate. That is not change in any way either. He takes money and orders from liberal special interest groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink (a documented Obama donor wearing a Code Pink dress invaded the RNC during speeches). He opposes energy independence to keep envonmental donors happy. None of this is ANYTHING RESEMBLING CHANGE from what we've been seeing over the last few decades and expecially the Pelosi/Reid reign in Congress.
LIE Obamas tax plans do NOT raise taxes. I think you are confused my friend. If you would even read a little, you will see that he is FAR from a do nothing senator. How many lobbyists are McCain advisers? Not just donaters, but people directly involved with the campaign? Count em.. If you need help, let me know. (hint: its more than a dozen )

Obama preaches change, but offers none. McCain and Palin have records of reform and REAL change and intend to attempt to enforce it on the corrupt Washington powerbrokers. Whether they succeed or not is yet to be seen, but they WILL try to clean it up and get them working for the people instead of themselves again.Again, what record? Ive yet to see one that everyone keeps talking about..

He refuses to debate one-on-one with McCain and without a teleprompter because he knows how badly he'll be embarrassed.
.. Id like to see where you got this from.

af3ll

09-09-2008, 10:47 AM

Buster you're an idiot. Stop watching Fox News.

pinkshinyalan

09-09-2008, 11:02 AM

Here's some of Obama's accomplishments while in the U.S. Senate:

Worked with republican senator Lugar to expand and author
program to locate & dismantle stray Russian WMD’s left over
from the cold war after the disbanding of the USSR.

Jan. 2007, major ethics/lobbying reform bill, w/ Russ Feingold
insisted tougher measures banning lobbyist gifts/ meals/ jets,
disclosure of earmark & contribution bundling to candidates or
committees; restricts retiring Congress from going into lobbying

Toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories, he told
Palestinian Authority Abbas that US would never recognize
Hamas leaders until they renounced mission to attack Israel.
In Africa, publicly took AIDS test as example of responsibility
Obama cosponsored Secure Orderly Immigration Act by John
McCain. Passed 62-36. Makes undocumented persons who
have been here 5+ years only allowed to stay and apply for
citizenship, if pay back taxes, learn English and no criminal
record. 2 million undocumented persons who have been in the
United States for less than two years would be ordered home.

He also sponsored 157 bills in the Illinois Senate; Held 39 town hall meetings throughout Illinois once he became state senator.

http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf

Calling him a do-nothing senator is a naked lie. The McCain campaign likes to say "What has Obama done in the Senate? Can anybody tell me?" This plea of ignorance implies that he hasn't done anything while they know full well that he has done plenty.

The Obama campaign has given McCain all the credit he is due, for things like McCain-Feingold finance reform and his military service. McCain has supported some reform measures and broken with his party from time to time in some very visible ways. He has also voted in line with the party and with George W. Bush 90+% of the time.

His occasional steps out of the party line were highly visible, but his toeing the party line is far more common.

EmoRebellion

09-09-2008, 12:07 PM

Continuing on what you had posted..

** First legislation, the HOPE Act, which increased Pell Grants to $5100, and later joined Senator Kennedy on the Higher Education legislation that passed July 20, by a vote of 78-18. That legislation also included funding for Predominantly Black Colleges to assist with counseling, tutoring and other needs of low income students. It also creates the Teaching Residency Act which will create a school-based teacher preparation program in high needs schools to provide each teacher with a mentor, content instruction, classroom management skills, a master’s degree and state certification, and a 2 year follow-up program.

**The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006
is an act that requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountabi... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Ac t_of_2006)

**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
Authored by U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.
Signed into Law on January 11, 2007.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/chrisblas... (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/chrisblask/gGCPsK)

**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_17/news/19664-1.html?... (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_17/news/19664-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS)
http://www.commonblog.com/story/2007/9/14/164837/331

** The “Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2125

** S116 - Summer Learning demonstration project to provide summer learning grants and encourage new teaching methods.
http://www.pasesetter.org/demonstrationPrograms/nasd.ht... (http://www.pasesetter.org/demonstrationPrograms/nasd.html)

and this one, moved out of committee just a few days ago:
Obama's Global Poverty Act of 2007, passed out of committee just a few days ago
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
http://obama.senate.gov (http://obama.senate.gov/) /

Amendments, that have all passed:

S.Amdt.159 to S.Con.Res.18 - To prevent and, if necessary, respond to an international outbreak of the avian flu.

S.Amdt.390 to H.R.1268 - To provide meal and telephone benefits for members of the Armed Forces who are recuperating from injuries incurred on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.

S.Amdt.670 to H.R.3 - To provide for Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) refueling capability at new and existing refueling station facilities to promote energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

S.Amdt.808 to H.R.6 - To establish a program to develop Fischer-Tropsch transportation fuels from Illinois basin coal.

S.Amdt.851 to H.R.6 - To require the Secretary to establish a Joint Flexible Fuel/Hybrid Vehicle Commercialization Initiative, and for other purposes.

S.Amdt.1362 to S.1042 - To require a report on the Department of Defense Composite Health Care System II.

S.Amdt.1453 to S.1402 - To ensure the protection of military and civilian personnel in the Department of Defense from an influenza pandemic, including an avian influenza pandemic.

S.Amdt.2301 to H.R.3010 - To increase funds to the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program and to the Office of Special Education Programs of the Department of Education for the purposes of expanding positive behavioral interventions and supports.

S.Amdt.2605 to S.2020 - Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should immediately address issues relating to no-bid contracting.

S.Amdt.2930 to S.2349 - To clarify that availability of legislation does not include nonbusiness days.
S.Amdt.3144 to S.Con.Res.83 - To provide a $40 million increase in FY 2007 for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and to improve job services for hard-to-place veterans

S. Amdt 41 to S. 1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.

----------------------------------------------

Barack has Written a total of 890 Bills and Co-sponsored Another 1096 since he started serving in the U.S. Senate.

SeRiousZX2

09-09-2008, 02:00 PM

Ignore Buster. He ALWAYS post random stuff that he can't back up with facts like links. Thats why I never respoond to his post. They aren't worth my time.

That is all.

EmoRebellion

09-09-2008, 02:15 PM

Ya'but he sounds like he really knows what hes talking about.. :rolleyes:

SeRiousZX2

09-09-2008, 03:00 PM

Ya'but he sounds like he really knows what hes talking about.. :rolleyes:

So does McCain :lol::lol::lol::lol:

JonsZX2SR

09-11-2008, 09:24 PM

The one thing the Democrats fear the most...

Bill Clinton predicts big win for Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html)

Bill, you need to STFU. Better yet, get caught in a scandal with Sarah Palin.

SeRiousZX2

09-12-2008, 08:09 AM

...get caught in a scandal with Sarah Palin.

:hitnana:

pinkshinyalan

09-12-2008, 08:40 AM

:hitnana:

Uhmm, you'd want to have a threesome with Bill and Palin?

Gross.

SeRiousZX2

09-12-2008, 08:46 AM

No, I would want to get caught in a scandal with Sarah Palin. I deleted the part with Bill Clinton......

She is a hot little MILF. Up in her business suit, stylish glasses, hair pulled back, and attitude. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!

EmoRebellion

09-12-2008, 08:47 AM

Id do it only if I could film it.. How awesome would that be to have that tape? You could pretty much name your price.. :lol:

EDIT: This place creeps me out sometimes..

EmoRebellion

09-13-2008, 06:56 PM

Hm, I just stumbled on an interesting tidbit.. Im sure youll enjoy this (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html) buster! Cindy McCain's outfit for the RNC cost between $299,100 and $313,100. Wow, thats alot of money... OK, really she probably doesnt think anything of it. Thats a normal outfit for her. Who can fault her for that, right? My only problem is that they are running an entire smear campeign based on Obama being an "elitest". How the hell does that work? That is more than the entire Obama household income last year. I got a little curious and did a little searching. To compare, Michelles outfit cost approximately $148 (http://newsone.com/elections/article/whos-the-real-elitist-now-cindy-mccains-outfit-cost-300000-dollars).

So again, who is the elitist (http://teamzx2.com/showpost.php?p=3233&postcount=30)?

SoCalZX2

09-13-2008, 07:18 PM

Zx2naCan

09-13-2008, 07:32 PM

You really can't knock a Cindy McCain for wearing $280,000 earings, she has the money to afford that herself. The McCains wealth is not a debateable subject for or against his candidacy. Just like Palins daughters pregnancy, or Obama's religious beliefs.

I want to hear real issues.

EmoRebellion

09-13-2008, 07:47 PM

Did either of you numskulls read my post? Here, Ill make it easier on you guys..

Hm, I just stumbled on an interesting tidbit.. Im sure youll enjoy this (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html) buster! Cindy McCain's outfit for the RNC cost between $299,100 and $313,100. Wow, thats alot of money... OK, really she probably doesnt think anything of it. Thats a normal outfit for her. Who can fault her for that, right? My only problem is that they are running an entire smear campeign based on Obama being an "elitest". How the hell does that work? That is more than the entire Obama household income last year. I got a little curious and did a little searching. To compare, Michelles outfit cost approximately $148 (http://newsone.com/elections/article/whos-the-real-elitist-now-cindy-mccains-outfit-cost-300000-dollars).

So again, who is the elitist (http://teamzx2.com/showpost.php?p=3233&postcount=30)?
I am not knocking her for how much her clothes cost, I am knocking her for being a hypocrite.

EmoRebellion

09-13-2008, 07:50 PM

There we go with that whole "evil rich people" thing lol. You just bought a 75k car... You should be sympathizing with them, not harping on them. She owns a freakin' beer company... so sue her if she has money to blow...

Now, if you want to say they may not have the greatest understanding of what middle class are going through, thats something that you could say... but who the heck cares about how much their wardrobe costs.

Between that and a well paying job for McCain, I'm sure they have quite a bit of money in the bank. You give Obama 30 years in the senate to invest money and have his wife own a large company that does well... See how much their outfits cost then...

I tell ya, you'll just try and find any reason to harp on the McCains. BTW, wtf does a post about buster saying they're racist have to do with them being elitist?

Debate the damn issues (which is something you say the the Rep people won't do, but I have yet to see you do yourself... Hypocrite).
Ugh, again you wont READ.

All you have to do is listen to many of his speeches regarding race. He often emphasizes "blacks" when speaking, threw his white Grandmother under the bus by calling her a "typical white woman" in a speech, has attended, contributed to, gotten married and had his kids baptized by a horriblly racist man in a racist church and even given him campaign positions in the past. Look up Michelle's college thesis on living in a racist nation. Obama is not a candidate for ALL people. He's constantly stereotyping white people and working citizens as he talks down to us.

Even aside from his racially-divisive personality and beliefs, he's an elitist. This can be evidenced by the speech he gave to a San Francisco last week when he said "bitter people cling to guns and religion". He can't relate to working people and seems to have an intolerance for them. This is why he'll feel no shame in taxing them (us) into poverty to pay for his social programs and initiatives. He views taxes not as a revenue-generator for the Government, but as a means to put everybody on an even level, a very socialist view.

This should disqualify him for the Presidency and after ballots are counted, that is what he'll find has happened. He's working out as a candidate much like John Kerry, someone who is unelectable because of his inability to relate to the voters who pay attention.

Here's a couple of good reads.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/a_living_lie.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/04/18/mainstream_media_oblivious_to_relevancy_of_many_ob ama-gates

An yeah, I did just buy a $75,000 car. Thanks for reminding me! :partynanas:

SoCalZX2

09-13-2008, 07:53 PM

Ok, I missed the 1 sentence in there mentioning elitism LOL Sorry

EmoRebellion

09-13-2008, 07:55 PM

Yeah, I dont have the patience to copy only the relevant parts, lmao. Sorry about that.. :rofl:

Zx2naCan

09-13-2008, 09:07 PM

Ok, I missed the 1 sentence in there mentioning elitism LOL Sorry

Yeah, anyone that has been paying attention to the Presidential campaign knows that McCain is worth a hell of a lot more than Obama. So I don't understand how anything saying that Obama is an Eliteist would stick...

But I guess I missed the point as well.

zxtwou2

09-14-2008, 01:50 PM

Yeah, anyone that has been paying attention to the Presidential campaign knows that McCain is worth a hell of a lot more than Obama. So I don't understand how anything saying that Obama is an Eliteist would stick...

But I guess I missed the point as well.

having money isn't being an elitist. being an elitist is an attitude, not a measure of wealth.

JonsZX2SR

09-14-2008, 01:58 PM

When McCain dumped his sick previous wife and married his current rich wife he was showing an elitist attitude about life. I guess the words of his wedding vows "in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer" didn't have much meaning when it came to Mccain upgrading his lot in life.

Anyone running for the presidency, vice-presidency or US Senate has an elitist attitude to some extent, or they wouldn't have gotten this far.

Someone might be able to argue that one behaves in more of an elitist manner than the other, but trying to say one is elitist and the other is not is taking an unrealistic view of life.

A more relevant question is who would you be more comfortable with as president, given all the personality traits they have exhibited so far ??

Zx2naCan

09-14-2008, 05:21 PM

Vote 3rd Party.

JonsZX2SR

09-15-2008, 11:33 AM

McCain and Obama both blasted the lack of financial oversight (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/wall.street.candidates/index.html) for the past few years...

As I've been saying the Bush adminsitration and the White House have been asleep at thge wheel when it comes to regulating excesses of the financial institutions in this country.

phosphite

09-16-2008, 01:03 PM

af3ll

09-16-2008, 01:06 PM

SoCalZX2

09-16-2008, 04:27 PM

McCain’s Radical Agenda
"John McCain’s health plan is a monumental change in the way coverage would be provided to millions of people. Why aren’t we paying more attention?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?ex=1379304000&en=002e12e7e04e2233&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

I'm not going to tout on liberal this or that, but I'd ask for an actual link to his proposal. I do agree we need more patient control, better restrictions on malpractice suits and better doctors.

Health care is so expensive because of frivolous law suits in this area no? Now, there needs to be some repercussions for Dr's doing a poor job, and I'm not saying they should have a free pass.

National health care is just as bad if not worse than this plan (if it's true to what the plan is), because either way, it'd end up raising taxes for everyone. So don't try and play McCain's plan is worse... IF this is his true agenda for HC, it's just as bad as a national system IMHO.

phosphite

09-17-2008, 06:31 AM

lol @ af3ll

If you're interested in the proposal link, go do your homework and find it! :) (Ideally) the media does this for us and fact-checks everything, especially from a large media source such as the New York Times. Or if you wish, you can put on a tin-foil hat! :) Sorry I don't have time to find all this and provide it, I'm just trying to contribute to inform people about the "maverick".

SoCalZX2

09-17-2008, 09:23 AM

Buster

09-17-2008, 10:11 AM

Obama's Health-Care Plan: Wrong RX
Barack Obama's presidential campaign is supposed to represent a new politics that transcends traditional partisanship, open to new ideas from all sides, and leavened with optimism. But if Obama's new health-care plan is an example of this new politics, give me old fashioned partisan bickering and gridlock anytime.

That plan, unveiled Monday in Des Moines, is a dog's breakfast of bad ideas from Left, Right, and center, topped with an unhealthy amount of wishful thinking. If enacted it would cost Americans dearly — in higher taxes, lost jobs, reduced freedom of choice, and lower quality health care.

From the Left, along with the usual mishmash of increased subsidies, Obama, has taken the idea of an employer mandate. Obama would establish a "play or pay" system under which employers would be required to provide their workers with health insurance or pay a payroll tax to fund government-provided insurance. There are two big problems with this approach. First, it flies in the face of basic economics. The amount of compensation a worker receives is a function of his productivity, and an employer is indifferent as to whether that compensation is in the form of wages, taxes, health insurance, or other benefits. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers without increasing their productivity. Employers will therefore have to find ways to offset the added costs. This they can do by raising prices, lowering wages or reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits such as pensions, or hiring fewer workers. Almost certainly, employees will be the net losers under such a mandate, with the low-skilled suffering most.

Second, an employer mandate locks us further into an employment-based health insurance system at a time when there is a growing bipartisan consensus that we should be moving in the opposite direction. There is no logical reason for tying health insurance to employment. There are many good reasons for not doing so.

At the same time, he looks right to call for a Massachusetts-style insurance "connector," an idea being promoted by the Heritage Foundation among others. (Obama calls it "an exchange.") The exchange would allow workers to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax dollars, leveling the playing field for individual insurance and giving workers the chance to buy personal and portable insurance — a good idea. The problem is that "exchanges" are also regulatory bodies. Indeed, Obama wants the "exchange" to regulate all sorts of things, including minimum benefit packages, premium caps, limits on copayments and deductibles, and "standards of quality and efficiency."

Like Hillary Clinton, who announced part of her health-care plan last week, Obama would require insurers to cover everyone regardless of their health status and charge community-rated premiums. One goal of health-care reform should be to encourage people to enter the insurance pool while they are young and healthy. We can do this by making insurance inexpensive for them, and penalizing them if they wait to buy insurance when they are old and sick. Community rating and guaranteed issue does precisely the opposite, raising the cost of insurance for the young and healthy and removing any penalty for waiting. Inevitably, this means more young healthy people will make the rational choice to go without insurance. Hillary Clinton (and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, for that matter) dealt with this by mandating that everyone buy insurance. Obama seems unaware of the problem he is creating.

Finally, there is the question of how to pay for all this. Obama does not put a price tag on his plan, but there is no doubt it will be expensive. Indeed, it will almost certainly be far more expensive than he assumes, since his ideas for cost savings are mostly figments of his imagination. For example, Obama assumes that allowing the federal government to directly negotiate Medicare drug prices will yield substantial savings. But the Congressional Budget Office has said that private insurance plans have already reduced drug prices about as far as they can go, and unless the government is prepared to severely restrict drug formularies, denying seniors access to some drugs, further savings are unlikely.

And Obama, like everyone else from Newt Gingrich to Hillary Clinton, assumes that there will be enormous savings from having the government design a system for electronic medical records. Electronic medical records would undoubtedly be a good thing and would reduce both costs and medical errors. The private sector is already moving rapidly in that direction. But the federal government has not yet figured out how to get the FBI's computers to talk to each other. What makes anyone think that a single federally-imposed medical IT system will be more efficient?

So far three Democrats (Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards) and one Republican, (Mitt Romney) have put forward plans for health-care reform. For supporters of free market health care, it is looking like a very long and disappointing campaign.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8266
(A much more reliable source than the NY Times)

Here is McCain's actual record on Healthcare:

# FactCheck: McCain's $5,000 health tax credit would be taxed. (Aug 2008)
# Large tax credit for families to buy their health care. (Jul 2008)
# Harness market competition for comprehensive reform. (Feb 2008)
# Preserve quality of health care by individual responsibility. (Dec 2007)
# Give individuals $2500 refundable tax credits for healthcare. (Oct 2007)
# Control health costs so manufacturers stay competitive. (Oct 2007)
# No mandated universal system; no mandated insurance coverage. (Jun 2006)
# We should be able to reimport drugs from Canada. (Jan 2006)
# Include a health savings account in healthcare reform. (Jan 2006)
# The problem with health care in America is inflation. (Jan 2006)
# Supports tax-free medical savings accounts & tax credits. (Nov 2004)
# 1989: No mandatory catastrophic Medicare coverage. (Jan 2004)
# 1993: To socialize healthcare would be to ruin it. (Jan 2004)
# Greater consumer access to generic drugs. (May 2002)
# Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000)
# Matching funds for seniors citizens’ prescription drugs. (Dec 1999)
# Expand health insurance to 11 million uninsured children. (Dec 1999)
# Keep health care promises to aging veterans. (Nov 1999)
# Address powerlessness when faced with health care crises. (Jul 1999)
# “Patient rights” means value human life over dollars. (Jul 1999)
# Expand medical savings; community health; & tax deductions. (Jul 1999)
# Patient Rights: access; MDs over HMOs; grievance process. (Jul 1999)
# Allow paying extra for choice of doctors & care. (Jul 1999)
# Full doctor-patient discussion even when it costs HMO. (Jul 1999)
# Supports patient rights; regulate nicotine as a drug. (Jul 1998)
# More tax-deductible health costs; limits on malpractice. (Jul 1998)

http://issues2000.org/2008/John_McCain_Health_Care.htm#Voting_Record

# Allow appealing HMO decisions externally & in court. (Jul 1999)
# Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
# Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
# Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
# Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
# Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
# Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
# Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
# Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
# Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
# Voted NO on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
# Voted NO on blocking medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
# Tax credits for those without employee health insurance. (May 2002)
# Tax deduction for long-term care insurance. (May 2002)
# Support telemedicine for underserved areas. (May 2002)
# $350 billion for prescriptions for poor seniors. (May 2002)
# Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)

Not only is it NOT "radical", it makes a lot of sense. The free market will ALWAYS yield better results than the Government. Want evidence? Today's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems WILL be the problems we see with hospitals and health providers if Obama's plan is put into action.

Here's Obama's record on the issue:
http://issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm#Health_Care

phosphite

09-18-2008, 06:19 AM

Information without link is just not good enough. I don't see why I have to do your research for you. You posted a link from a reporters perspective. All I asked you to do is provide corroborating evidence to support their claims since you've immediately jumped on board with it as fact.

If you can't or are unwilling to do that, why should I just take their opinion as fact?

The New York Timers has fact checkers. Obviously any report similar to what I've posted has and speculative piece; this one asks why nobody is paying attention to his "iffy" plan.

If you don't want to believe anything unless you have raw evidence, you're probably in the same clan that believes the moon landings are faked. Your tinfoil hat is blinding me. Your insistent "proof call" is just another smoke and mirrors distraction tactic to deal with instead of debating any issues. At least Buster has provided some retaliation and points for debate!

Not only is it NOT "radical", it makes a lot of sense. The free market will ALWAYS yield better results than the Government. Want evidence? Today's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems WILL be the problems we see with hospitals and health providers if Obama's plan is put into action.

The standard Republican plan is to let the market sort itself out. Obviously that failed, since the gov had to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Capitalism failed. But wait, what happened, the gov bailed them out; isn't the "free" market supposed to decide what's best? Instead the gov props up failures. What you have you don't allow capitalism to fail, is socialism for the rich.

SeRiousZX2

09-18-2008, 07:33 AM

^ Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 07:48 AM

The New York Timers has fact checkers. Obviously any report similar to what I've posted has and speculative piece; this one asks why nobody is paying attention to his "iffy" plan.

If you don't want to believe anything unless you have raw evidence, you're probably in the same clan that believes the moon landings are faked. Your tinfoil hat is blinding me. Your insistent "proof call" is just another smoke and mirrors distraction tactic to deal with instead of debating any issues. At least Buster has provided some retaliation and points for debate!

The standard Republican plan is to let the market sort itself out. Obviously that failed, since the gov had to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Capitalism failed. But wait, what happened, the gov bailed them out; isn't the "free" market supposed to decide what's best? Instead the gov props up failures. What you have you don't allow capitalism to fail, is socialism for the rich.

The free market wasn't allowed to sort itself out because of the effect it would have had on the american population... why is that so hard to understand? It would have sorted itself out, but could the country afford for so many big name investment firms and insurance firms to go under? Not really. Guess you don't really have a clue about how the free market works. It's not really socialism for the rich... it's call saving the middle class from f'd up politics that didn't get sorted out years ago when people warned the Gov't this could happen... Too bad you don't understand that. You might if you lived here.

As for me wanting evidence... you yourself said that IDEALLY there are fact checkers, but you know for fact that media doesn't always check it's sources before something is publicized. I just want a damn link to where they got their information. How is that side stepping ANYTHING? Also, thanks for making a judgment call on ME as a person... without any real knowledge of me. I want to see both sides of it before I make MY OWN judgment. Too bad you're just willing to take an article as fact without doing your own research... since you posted the article, why am I the one that has to do your research?

Serious... nice addition... /sarcasm.

phosphite

09-18-2008, 08:34 AM

Sorry, I'm not arguing about proof unless you can prove to me the NYT is wrong. The article I posted relates to opinion on what McCain's plan COULD lead to; he could be wrong. You are free to debate whether it's a bad plan or not, but I won't waste time when you're simply whining for proof. Email the NYT author if you're that inquisitive.

McCain flip-flops on AIG bailout:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/17/mccain-aig/

(Related, McCain's 44 flip-flops: http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/)

Regarding the AIG bailout (and others), it's hardly saving the middle class when the middle class are the ones that are paying the taxes that will be propping up AIG; it's digging them further into debt. This way you have Capitalist Profit and Socialist Debt. McCain calls for deregulation, but you can't have both deregulation AND bailouts by the federal government.

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 08:56 AM

IIRC McCain cosponsered a bill to have more regulation on fanny mae and freddy mac. My simply "whining" for proof is just asking for a link that YOU are unwilling to provide. I'm NOT unwilling to belive what the NYT has said, I just want the info they used to make their conclusions. I can't believe you're being so abrasive about this. I'm not providing "smoke and mirrors", I just want more information than ONE SINGLE ARTICLE.

What you're failing to see is that if the gov't lets all the big name companies fail, the economy as a whole will not handle that well. Mass panic by the tax payers = failing stock market.

People are unwilling to "weather the storm", so they pull their money out which only hurts the economy further. So yes, everyone is paying for the bailout, but it's a smaller price to pay then having the economy go further into the tank by "sticking it" to these companies that made poor decisions.

As for his "flip flop" on the AIG bailout... I agree with him. We as the tax payer SHOULDN'T be on the hook to bail anyone out... BUT, it's a necessary evil to keep the economy from going further under then it's moving to right now. So, your "flip flop" sounds more like an adjustment of opinion based on the facts of where we're at to me.

Instead of just immediately regarding a change in his position as a flip flop, you should review the evidence and see what could make someone change their mind on a topic.

SeRiousZX2

09-18-2008, 09:20 AM

How about we stop paying Iraq??? I bet that would help our economy. You know, we have dumped billions of dollars into Iraq, for what? $5 a gallon gas??? Wheres the payback? Lets us that money to pull these companies out....

How much money Congress has approved so far for:

Iraq: $630-$673 billion. That includes:

$123-128 billion Congress approved in 2003,

$21 - 25 billion in tide-over funds approved in 2004,

$70 billion from funds approved in May 2005 (we're not including the $5 billion that went to "transforming" the military); (WP)

$50 billion (about) approved in December 2005 as part of the 2006 defense budget bill,

A ballpark figure of $60 billion in June 2006. Military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan received $66 billion together.

Another ballpark number of $60 billion in September 2006 (again, the papers reported $70 for the combined wars). (WP)

Yet again, the papers report a $100 billion funding bill for the combined wars in May, 2007. We'll call it $90 billion for Iraq. (WP)

Congress added $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan onto the '08 budget (in December '07. We'll say $60 billion for Iraq. (WP)

In June '08, Congress okayed $162 billion to cover the wars through to summer '09 - in a package, HR 2642, that also added $63 billion for GI education (over 11 years), extensions to unemployment support ($8 billion over 11 years) and other domestic measures. (WP) Since the Afghanistan war is heating up, let's say $130 billion is paying for Iraq.

Note: A February, 2008 CRS report estimates a total of $526 billion has been appropriated for the Iraq war.

Afghanistan: February 2008 they estimated that the Afghanistan war and related counterterrorism missions have cost $140 billion. (CRS - pdf)

How much a year (again from CRS - pdf):

$53 billion in 2003

$76 billion in 2004

$85 billion in 2005

$102 billion in 2006

$133 billion in 2007

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 09:36 AM

Buster

09-18-2008, 09:44 AM

The defense spending (which is necessary) is a drop in the bucket compared to the welfare and social programs that liberals have instituted since FDR. Senator Obama wants to increase the wasteful spending dramatically also. Add up all of his proposed ideas to help "this group" and "that group". We can't pay for them, even with the huge tax hikes he'll have to impose on us.

EmoRebellion

09-18-2008, 10:11 AM

pinkshinyalan

09-18-2008, 10:38 AM

How about we look at other things that have provided far more of a yearly drag on our economy... The 300+ BILLION a year into illegal immigrants?

I agree with you serious, it'd be better to use that money at home, but trying to imply that Iraq is the single worst economic policy we have is pretty far fetched and shows a bit of bias from your opinion. Fact is, there is at least 1 item that provides more economic downfall then Iraq does, but no one is talking about it. We've also not paid 5$ for even premium yet (price surges from Ike excluded), so thats another inflation of your statement.

See past Iraq... is it a drag on the economy? Sure, is it the worst one? Not by a long shot.

I can't find that figure or anything like it anywhere. Help me out here.

It's important to remember, though, that illegal immigrants still pay sales taxes, highway tolls, and those working with false papers pay federal taxes, and pay into social security and medicare, even though they won't see any of the benefits of social security unless they become legal.

Over the last 20 years, illegal immigrants have paid $300 billion INTO social security without getting the benefits. That's just into social security.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050410/news_mz1e10ruben.html

EmoRebellion

09-18-2008, 10:41 AM

Im not saying something either way about that, but do you really think that most of the illegals are working with false papers? I doubt it, the majority are getting paid under the table.

pinkshinyalan

09-18-2008, 10:54 AM

I personally know a good number of illegally-documented immigrants here. They buy cars and homes, and pay taxes.

You're right, we don't know how many there are, and the ones who pay probably aren't making up for the ones who don't. I just don't know how much it does cost us.

SeRiousZX2

09-18-2008, 11:23 AM

How about we look at other things that have provided far more of a yearly drag on our economy... The 300+ BILLION a year into illegal immigrants?

I agree with you serious, it'd be better to use that money at home, but trying to imply that Iraq is the single worst economic policy we have is pretty far fetched and shows a bit of bias from your opinion. Fact is, there is at least 1 item that provides more economic downfall then Iraq does, but no one is talking about it. We've also not paid 5$ for even premium yet (price surges from Ike excluded), so thats another inflation of your statement.

See past Iraq... is it a drag on the economy? Sure, is it the worst one? Not by a long shot.

I am extremely biased on it because of my service. I'm sure you would be too. And gas has hit $5. Thats not another inflation on my part. Look it up!!! I can tell you right now out of memory Alaska has hit in the low $5 range. I know Alabama has hit in the $5 range as well for 87 octane.

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 11:54 AM

I am extremely biased on it because of my service. I'm sure you would be too. And gas has hit $5. Thats not another inflation on my part. Look it up!!! I can tell you right now out of memory Alaska has hit in the low $5 range. I know Alabama has hit in the $5 range as well for 87 octane.

I'll say I'm shocked then... because Cali has some of (IIRC was reported the highest in the nation) highest gas prices nationwide... and we never went above about 4.80/gallon for PREMIUM.

The national average for 87 never flirted with 5/gallon either. So I apologize that I missed a couple of places that hit 5/gallon, but your statement was a general one that needed to be corrected.

The problem with your bias, is you can't see past it. I honestly cant fathom what you've seen, or heard so I won't try. But what I can tell you, is you can't see past your own bias on a topic.

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 11:56 AM

I can't find that figure or anything like it anywhere. Help me out here.

It's important to remember, though, that illegal immigrants still pay sales taxes, highway tolls, and those working with false papers pay federal taxes, and pay into social security and medicare, even though they won't see any of the benefits of social security unless they become legal.

Over the last 20 years, illegal immigrants have paid $300 billion INTO social security without getting the benefits. That's just into social security.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050410/news_mz1e10ruben.html

It was a thread either here or on the last board that documented the money put into illegal immigration. Those with falsified papers are far outweighed by those being payed under the table (I would assume anyways). (I didn't do the research on the cost of illegals, but the poster who did IIRC had links and everything. I tried searching in vain to find it here. I'll search again, but it may have been on the old site)

My point is, Iraq isn't as big a drag on the economy that people would want everyone to believe... There are bigger fish to fry in that regards.

EmoRebellion

09-18-2008, 12:01 PM

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 12:05 PM

I dont know about you, but $100 billion a year seems like alot to me. Just about $580 billion spent so far..

Just to compare, $100 billion is about the federal education budget. What if we took that "small drain" $100 billion and doubled the education budget?

Umm, having problems seeing through your smoke? I'm not saying that we could have used the 580B elsewhere. So I'd really appreciate you stop putting words in my mouth or trying to make it seem like I think the money was well spent...

Thank you.

EmoRebellion

09-18-2008, 12:31 PM

Umm, having problems seeing through your smoke? I'm not saying that we could have used the 580B elsewhere. So I'd really appreciate you stop putting words in my mouth or trying to make it seem like I think the money was well spent...

Thank you.
I never said that you said that. You did say:
My point is, Iraq isn't as big a drag on the economy that people would want everyone to believe... There are bigger fish to fry in that regards.

Who is trying to make it seem like it is a big drag on the economy? There is no trying, it is a big deal, the numbers are there. As far as I am concerned, $600 billion hemorrhage is a big drag imho. Im not trying to put words in your mouth

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 01:04 PM

Is it a drag? OF COURSE! Where did I EVER say it wasn't? But 580B over 5 years is less of a drag than other things (AKA immigration). Thats what I was saying, not trying to downplay the use of 580B dollars, but trying to get people to open their freakin' eyes and see that Iraq isn't the worst thing that has been done economically.

I guess thats just a bit too hard to grasp... like taxes, and whos to actually blame for the economic down turn...

SeRiousZX2

09-18-2008, 01:16 PM

SoCalZX2

09-18-2008, 01:26 PM

At least we get some sort of return from immigration. At least these individuals are willing to work and do the jobs that Americans think they are above.

With Iraq we havn't recieved any benefits or kickbacks.

And I agree with that. Fact is, we do get something back, but it's more of a drag on the economy vs a benefit... 300B over 20 years vs the money @ 300B per year... not much of a kick back to make it worth it IMHO.

EmoRebellion

09-19-2008, 09:14 AM

LOL McCain is still talking about firing Christopher Cox (SEC chairman) if he gets elected. Maybe someone should brief him on what the president actually does.. The SEC chairman is nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. The president doesnt have the power to just fire him. :lol:

Yes, he can ask for his resignation but Cox has made it pretty clear he has no intention of stepping down..

SeRiousZX2

09-19-2008, 09:33 AM

Thats because he still thinks he is in the military.

JonsZX2SR

09-20-2008, 11:56 AM

...another thing to consider is how racial stereotyping is going to affect the election. Many white Americans ask why minorities, including blacks and children with one or both parents born overseas, can't work hard, get and education, pull themselves up and be successful.

Many minorities don't try and don't succeed, but not all of them. The same is true of the white majority.

However, you don't have to look farther than Obama and his wife, Michelle, as two people who pulled themselves up, worked hard, became eductaed and succeeded.

I suspect that many white Americans who use this argument against minorities, claiming they are lazy, will now be threatened by examples of people who did what exactly they ask. Ironically, many of theose same white Americans are less motivated, less educated, less successful than the minorities they criticize.

McCain certainly has been a success in the past, but his abilities are diminishing. Obama on the other hand, has done just what those white folks asked of minorities and his abilities will increase with experience.

EmoRebellion

09-20-2008, 06:23 PM

SoCalZX2

09-20-2008, 06:43 PM

Thats been one of my main points all along.. Id really rather have someone whos up and coming, always learning and getting experience, as opposed to someone who may be past their prime in terms of cognitive abilities and on the decline.

I don't think I can disagree with that. The problem is, for me anyways, that I don't want the Presidential seat to be on the job training. More importantly, I don't agree with his proposed "change".

phosphite

09-21-2008, 08:42 AM

SoCalZX2

09-21-2008, 08:48 AM

Things are great right now in the US, the economy is doing great, gas is cheap, the war on Iraq is almost won, Afghanistan is almost done, terrorism is almost over, and everybody loves the U.S. Stay the course, Vote republican! :)

:p I don't think that's what anyone here is saying (I note the sarcasm remarks). I know I'm certainly not saying that.

Gas will never be "cheap" again, terrorism will always exists, the economy isn't in the tank, but it's not doing great... But that's no reason to vote for someone who's economic plan will put us further behind, who's plan to leave iraq could quite possibly leave us in a worse view then we are now.

I know people want out of iraq, and they want a bigger paycheck due to tax cuts and they want cheaper fuel... Take a look around, clean out your debt to get a better paycheck, gas never goes DOWN in price, it goes up every year, and if you leave iraq without the ability to stand on it's own feet, history won't remember the "good" we've done.

SoCalZX2

09-21-2008, 08:52 AM

Mind you, I don't like EITHER choice we have to vote for... But I can't in good conscience vot for someone who I believe will put us further behind the 8-ball and supports things I don't believe in.

So I'm stuck voting for an old guy, and a hot hockey mom...

JonsZX2SR

09-21-2008, 09:22 AM

SoCalZX2

09-21-2008, 09:30 AM

That's why I can't vote for an old guy whose cognitive skills are declining and a hockey mom whose cognitive skills are limited. Voting for them would put us behind the 8-ball and support things I don't believe in.

Thats fine Jon :) I'm not here to convince you otherwise. Fact is, Obamas Economic plan (I believe) will have farther reaching economic problems then it'll help anything. Added to that, the poor way he wants to leave iraq IIRC w/o a plan to have them standing on their own feet will also HURT us more then help.

I don't disagree that there are problems w/ the McCain ticket, but I don't agree with anything politically that Obama/Biden are putting out there and don't think that an education they both got years ago is a good enough reason to elect them.

Just my .02

Zx2naCan

09-21-2008, 05:49 PM

Fact is, Obamas Economic plan (I believe) will have farther reaching economic problems then it'll help anything.

I think that Bush's economic plan is far worse than anything anyone else in the world could do. Even Corky would make a better President.

http://chsweb.lr.k12.nj.us/mcapriotti/corky.gif

SoCalZX2

09-21-2008, 05:59 PM

I think that Bush's economic plan is far worse than anything anyone else in the world could do. Even Corky would make a better President.

And that has what to do with my opinion of Obama's economic plan? Or are you under the misguided opinion I'm a huge bush supporter?

JonsZX2SR

09-21-2008, 08:02 PM

If McCain continues in the footsteps of the GW Bush economic plan we have 0% or getting out of this mess. With the Obama plan we have a 15-20% chance of success. This isn't encouraging, but it is better than 0%.

What we need is a united Congress that decides to get hold of the deficit, reduce spending (stop spending money on foreign aid and on Iraq) and pay the debt down to the same %age of GNP that we had at the end of the Clinton era.

Consumers need to spend less on oil, on China imports and and unnecessary material goods in general. they need to pay their debt down to manageable levels so they have more to spend in the future.

We have a better chance of making genetically engineered pigs that fly than electing a bi-partisan united Congress in the next 12 years.

EmoRebellion

09-23-2008, 09:10 AM

Any comments on this video? http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html

af3ll

09-23-2008, 09:29 AM

That's pretty good.

EmoRebellion

09-23-2008, 09:48 AM

Thats what she said?

EDIT: Seriously, I would like to hear what Buster or someone has to say.. IF they even watch it.

Zx2naCan

09-23-2008, 10:19 AM

And that has what to do with my opinion of Obama's economic plan? Or are you under the misguided opinion I'm a huge bush supporter?

You must be, you're voting for his protoge.

Zx2naCan

09-23-2008, 10:25 AM

Any comments on this video? http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html

That dosen't suprise me, his entire campaign is structured on stolen ideas and misguiding the American people.

SoCalZX2

09-23-2008, 10:28 AM

You must be, you're voting for his protoge.

I'm voting for McCain because I don't want Obama in office... There is a big difference.

As for the video, dayyyyum lol

Edit: That being said, I'm sure if you were to look, you could find a video or two on Obama that have been put together of some factual evidence... I will say, at least this video focused on McCain.

af3ll

09-23-2008, 10:32 AM

EDIT: Seriously, I would like to hear what Buster or someone has to say.. IF they even watch it.
I'll do it for you. The left wing media took everything and put it on there to do destroy McCain. Didn't you see the CNN parts and the part with Keith Olberman?[/Buster]

Zx2naCan

09-23-2008, 11:34 AM

I'm voting for McCain because I don't want Obama in office... There is a big difference.

You sound like McCain in that video...it would be like you to not want a president that has an education in Foreign affairs and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Illinois. You'd rather have a guy with a less than stellar military record and absolutely NO education in foreign affairs and economics to run this country.

That sounds like the smart decision, just because you "don't want Obama to be President." I'm glad you want to help ruin a perfectly good oppourtunity to have a resonable President in office. http://outlawedproductions.com/board/style_emoticons/default/buttkick.gif